P-40 Warhawk/Kittyhawk

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


Well, wikipedia says of it thus:

"It was a semi-modular design and thus easy to maintain in the field. It lacked innovations of the time, such as boosted ailerons or automatic leading edge slats, but it had a strong structure including a five-spar wing, which enabled P-40s to survive some mid-air collisions: both accidental impacts and intentional ramming attacks against enemy aircraft were occasionally recorded as victories by the Desert Air Force and Soviet Air Forces."

From what I've heard, the construction was overly "heavy," like the five-spar wing. Additionally, the older airfoil design was aerodynamically inferior to the NCA airfoil on the P-51, but it was also a lot sturdier (and heavier.) The P-51's airfoil was so thin that B model Mustangs didn't have electric gun chargers *and* jamming problems with their Brownings because the guns had to be installed at a funny angle.

That was my impression, at any rate.


Yes, let's compare the P-40 to two of the hardiest aircraft of the war to dismiss it's durability as only average. :rolleyes: The P-47 and Hurricane were both legendary for their ability to absorb damage; putting the P-40 in that category firmly establishes it as one of the toughest, resilient air-superiority fighters of the war. That still means it's a very tough bird.

The final variant of the P-40 was the P-40Q and at 420-odd mph it still wasn't as fast as the P-51.
Click to expand...

Who cares? It still had superior turn and roll characteristics, making it more manuverable then the P-51, and with 420mph speed, it's one crippling vice- low power- would be compensated for nicely. As reinreich just pointed out, a 30MPH advantage "won't win ACM" (though it does obviously have consequences.)


And where did I suggest that the P-40 should be introduced as a competitor to the P-51 in Europe? And what kind of crack would I have to be smoking to try, given that the P-51 was a long-range escort; a design unto itself? The P-40 wasn't even used on the Western Front.

As for commercial sense, the P-40 was $5,000 cheaper to build and more survivable, making it better at ground attack and arguably a better multi-role fighter (though that was true of the P-38 as well, which had an even better gun package and a longer range.) Of course, the P-40 was more manuverable then the P-38 as well, and the Merlin-engined models would not have had the crippling disability in the vertical.

But this is neither here nor there. I'm simply saying that the P-40 was an excellent airframe, and all it lacked was a good engine to give it the ability to really walk and talk the way it wanted to. I never suggested that the Army should have produced Merlin-engined P-40s instead of some other aircraft type, since by the time those engines were available, the Army had already built tons of P-38s, F6Fs, and other planes that had excellent performance characteristics of their own.

There might be something for suggesting that the Army could have saved themselves some trouble by tossing old Allison engines out of already-serving P-40s and installed new Merlins in them- an intelligent move at a time when any combat aircraft was desperately needed- but every Merlin was badly needed for Mustangs in the ETO, and the same for the new 1200 horsepower Allisons for P-38s in the PTO.
 
Seems like in the case of both the P-40 and the F4F, one of the big reasons that they "hung in there" for us was that they could take a beating and often get the pilot home, or give a pilot's buddy the time to bail him out when he was in a tight spot.
 
You're deeper in 'schoolgirl with a new kitten' than you realise...

1. Wiki's OK up to a point, don't labour under any illusions that it is a bible of any sort

2. I'd describe that as a bug in the overall design (which was resolved), rather than a limitation in the overall design

3. Yes, keep using rolleyes to support your argument if you're bent on looking like a smart-ass... if you read my previous post (more carefully this time) I did not dismiss the P-40's durability as average, I described it as hardy. My point was that there were peers of the P-40 that were also hardy, some admittedly, more so.

4. I'd say the USAAF cared. The USAAF was The Customer (capitals intended), your argument MIGHT have worked in reverse; if the P-40Q had gotten there before the P-51, the speed differential might have been overlooked (but I'm by no means convinced).

5a. Your smoking habits are your business. So where would this P-40 of yours go? Send your top dog, the P-40Q wherever you like, the P-51 will turn up and do it better. The P-40 didn't serve in Europe because it wasn't deemed suitable, it wasn't considered a match for German fighters at the altitudes combat was expected to take place.

5b. And there you hit upon a very salient point; the P-51 was not designed as a long-range escort, there was sufficient potential in the design that it could evolve into the role and that's where the P-40 fell down, the P-40Q was the end of the evolutionary line and it still wasn't good enough

6. Commercially, you're talking production costs, I'm talking raw materials; even a country the size of the US had to allocate resources but while we're on the subject, it was cheapness that kept the P-40 in production long after obsolescence, not its ability.

7. Do you have any statistical data to support this?

8. Arguably indeed, explain

9. What do you mean?

10. It was fitted with one and it still wasn't walking or talking fast enough or high enough any more

11. Well sorry, but you did; you go on however to answer your own question, other types were prioritised over the P-40 - why do you suppose that was?

12. I wonder why the Army didn't think of that? Am I allowed to use rolleyes?
 
Erik Schilling wrote

 
This is a great thread, I have enjoyed reading every post.

If I may speak for Demetrious, I think I feel what he is getting at, because it is something I believe.

Nobody is suggesting to consider the P-40 when talking about aircraft in the league of the P-51, or Fw 190 or any late model top of the line fighter.

But usually, even when considering only early war and pre war fighters, the Warhawk is overlooked or quickly dismissed. We are just trying to give it some love. And it is simply because the ONLY thing it lacked was the higher horsepower engine at altitude. It could manuever with the best of the early fighters, it had good firepower, overly stout construction, equal or better range, and decent load carrying ability. And as long is it was at 10 thousand feet or lower, its only disadvantage was climb performance. Obviously once it had to go to altitude the lack of power and power at altitude started to compound itself.

Because the U.S. was so fortunate to have many manufacturers and incredible internal competition, several aircraft were made that quickly outdated the Curtiss Warhawk. It would have been stupid to continue to push the P-40 when much better designs were available.

Because we are fans of the P-40, it is just fun to fantasize the possiblities if we were forced to primarily stick with our pre war fighter like Great Britain's Spitfire or Germany's Messerschmitt.

Demetrious, if I spoke words for you that you don't agree with, forgive me.
 
Well OK
but the point I'm trying to make is why the P-40 came to the end of the line when it did and why it did. The P-40Q came as close to the P-51 as likely was possible and it still wasn't good enough.

The UK and Germany didn't stick with the Spitfire or the Bf109 series because they had to, both types were still competitive at war's end, implying development potential.

You're right, it's a great thread and I don't think there are any P-40 haters or deriders commenting in it but the dedicated fans of the type seem to be getting overly optimistic about what it was capable of.
 
Some disagreements with mr. Schilling's words:

The P-40B was. . .
40 mph faster than the AM6-2 (21) Zero.
50 mph faster than the Hyabusa, or Ki-43.
Click to expand...

Not really, it's some 10-20mph difference.

195 mph faster than the cruise speed of the Ki-21 Sally.
Click to expand...

One should either compare cruising or max speed, not the max speed of one with cruise of another.

P-40 was 5 mph faster than the Me 109 E-3 at 15,000 feet
P-40 was 9 mph faster than the Spitefire Mk.IA at 15,000 feet
The P-40 could out turn the Me. 109 E-3, and could out dive it.
Click to expand...
1st: It's redicioulus to compare thw WWII planes that are two years apart. So, the P-40B shuld've been compared with Spit V and Bf-109Fs.
2nd: Mr. Schilling should compare the best max speed, not the one at the altitude that favoures the pet pony.
 
Amsel, if Schilling asserts that the AVG mastered the Zero, I believe he is in error as I question if the AVG ever fought the Zero. I would be surprised if the P40, through 1943, was ever able to do better than break even against the A6M.
 
Colin1 said:
.

The UK and Germany didn't stick with the Spitfire or the Bf109 series because they had to, both types were still competitive at war's end, implying development potential..
Click to expand...

You are right, and the only thing that kept them competitive was thier respective powerplants. Niether aircraft had great range, less so than the Warhawk if I remember correctly. Niether were great at hauling payloads for air to mud either. And that is the argument in a nutshell, IF the Warhawk was given an engine with the same capabilities as the Rolls Royce or Daimler, it would have made a world of difference.
 
renrich said:
Amsel, if Schilling asserts that the AVG mastered the Zero, I believe he is in error as I question if the AVG ever fought the Zero. I would be surprised if the P40, through 1943, was ever able to do better than break even against the A6M.
Click to expand...
I understand that. Members of the AVG loved their P-40's. The P-40 was prolific through much of the war and did quite well in capable hands. It's not the machine it's the man is what Schilling was essentially saying.
 
I don't beleive Mr. Schilling is with us anymore. He was a military aviator from before WWII through Nam and knows his aircraft. I take alot stock in his writings as an lifelong aviator.
 
The development of the Allison lagged for some reason during a crucial period, causing the P-51 to be reengined, among other things. Why did it fall behind when it had been going since 1930, and had the best fuel in the world to experiment with? Was it just the war department being stupid about not wanting to develop better supercharging?

The penultimate version, -119, was as good as any of its final generation competitors, powering the P-82.
 
We have to distinguish the late Mr. Schilling's bravery in combat in 1940's from his analysis on the internet in 1990's-2000's: a lot of the latter was full of errors.

And he got a kind of irrational bug up his ass about Dan Ford after Ford wrote 'Flying Tigers' which compared AVG claims to losses given in pretty standard Japanese sources, which were of course considerably less. A lot of the AVG and their fans got really pissed about that, even though AVG claims were no *more* exaggerated than those of the Allied fighter units against the Japanese in 1942, in fact generally less exaggerated.

The Thach Weave and the weave the AVG did were not the same. Thach's manuever was pretty unique in fighter combat history actually. It wasn't just cooperating elements scissoring across each other's flight paths, but the elements flying far enough apart to meet each other *head on* as they crossed. Thach was inspired to invent new tactics based on reports on high effectiveness of Japanese fighters in China, but his concept otherwise had little to do with Chennault, and nothing to do with the AVG.

And as mentioned, the AVG never met Zeroes. The bulk of its fighter opponents were Type 97's, although it also did well in a smaller sample of combats with Type 1's later on (and it met a few Type 2's and Type 2 two seat fighters as well). But 100% of its opposition was JAAF, the JNAF withdrew its fighter units from China in the fall of the 1941 to concentrate its strength on the coming Pacific War, and none flew in Burma (where the AVG did most of its fighting) until a few in 1943.

Joe
 
One historical account of the Thach weave I read said that there were in fact other weaves prior to that, later called "Bastard Weaves" but that specific maneuver was unique to Thach.
 
Hi Tomo,

>Not really, it's some 10-20mph difference.

Here is my Pacific fighters speed comparison again ... it really depends on which exact P-40 model you pit against the A6M2.

(I'm not sure right now the P-40F ever served in the Pacific, but I included it in the comparison for some reason ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 

Attachments

  • Pacific_Speed_Comparison.png
    7.5 KB · Views: 89

No, you are spot-on. Us P-40 fans just like to point out that the P-40 was every bit as good as the Spitfire or Bf-109. It is simply that, unlike those other two fighters, it's country of origin produced new fighter types at a fantastic pace, so the P-40 never received the constant upgrades that kept the other airframes lethal performers right until the end of the war (again, like the Spitfire or Bf-109.) History likes to deride the P-40 as a weak and failed aircraft, and that's sad.

Colin1 said:
You're deeper in 'schoolgirl with a new kitten' than you realise...
Click to expand...

Ah, so you are viewing my whole argument from the base assumption that I am a hopeless fanboy who is completely prepared to argue that the P-40 could whip the FW-190, the P-51, La-7, Jesus, and Optimus Prime all at the same time.

1. Wiki's OK up to a point, don't labour under any illusions that it is a bible of any sort
Click to expand...

The inadequacy of wikipedia is keenly felt here, as all it really says is "the P-40 was strongly built." Well, duh. I am left wanting for more detailed information.

2. I'd describe that as a bug in the overall design (which was resolved), rather than a limitation in the overall design
Click to expand...

It wasn't resolved, since the thin NCA airfoil was key to the P-51's success. I wouldn't describe the superior performance granted by it a "bug" OR a "limitation," personally. I mean, the Hurricane's construction made it very durable, but I don't think anybody would say that made it a better ship then the Spitfire. The performance trade-off is significant.


Which in turn implies that you thought I was saying the P-40 was alone in the durability class? When both the P-47 and Hurricane were superior? Again, you have made assumptions about my statements and my position.

4. I'd say the USAAF cared. The USAAF was The Customer (capitals intended), your argument MIGHT have worked in reverse; if the P-40Q had gotten there before the P-51, the speed differential might have been overlooked (but I'm by no means convinced).
Click to expand...

No. No, no, no. The USAAF needed a long-range escort fighter, that was the P-51. The P-40 was a great air superiority fighter AND had significantly better range then the Spitfire and Bf-109, but an 8 hour duration was out of the question.

The P-40Q, IMO, was silly. The P-40E, with the simple addition of a 1500 horsepower Merlin or Allison engine, was all that was needed.


That's because air combat in the ETO for the USAAF consisted of high-altitude escort for the bombers. As I have already pointed out, that was not a role for the P-40 from the beginning. However, on the Eastern Front, the P-40 proved itself quite capable against the Me-109, and you still have the African theater, Italian theater, and Pacific Theater to consider. The P-40 could out-turn, out-roll, and out-dive the P-51. The P-51 was much faster and had much better performance in the vertical (a very important attribute in ACM,) but again, with the simple addition of the currently available Allison or Merlin engine with 1500 horsepower, the P-51s "dominant performance" in both those areas would have been reduced to an "edge." Then it would have been the P-40's significant manuverability advantage vs. the P-51s 50mph speed and moderate climb advantage. A wash, I'd say. The P-40 is the superior furballer, the P-51, the superior energy fighter.


Neither could the Bf-109 or the FW-190 "evolve" into a extreme-long range escort. So the Bf-109, who's performance skyrocketed steadily from 1939 to 1945, remaining competitive to the end, was clearly the end of the evolutionary line and wasn't good enough!

To me, it is a testament to the amazing performance of the P-51 that a fighter built to do the near-impossible- achieve an 8 hour flight duration for long-rage escort- was also capable of holding it's own in a dogfight. The Mustang was a unique ship in this regard. Just because another fighter couldn't achieve that kind of long range didn't make it clearly inferior, it just made it like every other fighter plane in the world.


It was only about 5 grand cheaper then the Mustang, which wouldn't have been enough to forgive higher combat losses or poorer kill ratios.

7. Do you have any statistical data to support this?
Click to expand...

That's fairly common knowledge, you know.

8. Arguably indeed, explain
Click to expand...

It could absorb ground fire much better, a very important attribute for ground-attack.

On the other hand, the P-51 could haul twice the payload (2,000lbs to the P-4os 1,000.) Oh, wait, with a proper engine the P-40 could have matched that, too.

9. What do you mean?
Click to expand...

Performance in "the vertical" is a very important element of ACM. Basically, if an airplane can't turn OR roll worth a damn, but it can climb like a rocket, it can still dominate a fight. This is because it can simply climb away from a target on it's six, loop over, and dive on the enemy, blasting away from an angle the enemy can't match because it can't climb well enough to put it's guns on target.

Versus another airplane with good vertical performance, you can easily get a "turn-fight" that takes place in the vertical.

Now, the P-40s weak engine left it crippled in the vertical. Where another plane could climb to meet a diving enemy (as Bockle said one must as far back as 1918,) the P-40 could not. That meant that many enemy planes- most notably the Bf-109- that were inferior in every other aspect (roll, turn, dive,) could still wage a good fight.

The addition of sufficient power to the P-40 would have corrected it's one and only vice. It would not have made it dominant in that arena, but simply made it adequate enough that it would not be an easily exploited weakness.

10. It was fitted with one and it still wasn't walking or talking fast enough or high enough any more
Click to expand...

For long range bomber escort and that only.

HoHun said:
Here is my Pacific fighters speed comparison again ... it really depends on which exact P-40 model you pit against the A6M2.
Click to expand...

Having tried this extensively in a few good simulators flying both the A6M and the P-40, and from what I've read on ACM, I think what made the P-40 a better energy fighter is simply that it retained energy much better then the A6M Zero.

Most air combat, of course, does not take place at the maximum airspeed. In fact it can take several minutes of acceleration for a WWII fighter to reach it's maximum speed for it's altitude, and energy is rapidly bled off in violent maneuvers. Now, the A6M could accelerate faster, replacing that lost energy better, but the P-40 could keep more of it in the first place through violent maneuvers. Simply put, the P-40s higher mass gave it more inertia, and that, plus it's somewhat cleaner profile then the light, radial-engined A6M, let it keep a higher energy state once it had entered a fight. (I think inertia is the right term- if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.) This same principle is why the P-47 could zoom climb faster then anything in the air.

As far as I can tell, the P-40s superior energy retention is what was really significant. The speed advantage was just icing on the cake.
 
ACM is air combat maneuvering, a modern term. One has to be really enthusiastic to believe the P40 was the equal of the Spit and 109. The Spit and 109 are two of the classic designs of fighters in world history. The P40 might be underappreciated, but was hardly classic. It was too heavy, not very clean and based on results was probably not equal to the Wildcat in ACM, which hardly qualifies it for greatness. In air to ground it was probably better than the 109 or Spit but once the bombs were dropped and it had to defend itself, it was at a disadvantage. There was a good reason the P40 did not get into the fight in the ETO.
 
...I am a hopeless fanboy who is completely prepared to argue that the P-40 could whip the FW-190, the P-51, La-7, Jesus, and Optimus Prime all at the same time.
Oh God, not another one...

It wasn't resolved, since the thin NCA airfoil was key to the P-51's success. I wouldn't describe the superior performance granted by it a "bug" OR a "limitation," personally.
Are you actually bothering to read my responses or are you inadvertently answering questions from another forum? It WAS resolved, the wing's chord was thickened so that the guns could sit upright. This negated stoppages incurred as a result of high-torsion manoeuvres and who said the superior performance was the "bug" OR "limitation"?

I mean, the Hurricane's construction made it very durable, but I don't think anybody would say that made it a better ship then the Spitfire. The performance trade-off is significant.
Bit of a tangent but I don't think anyone is arguing with you there; trade-off is significant, yes - it always is. Can you see from your own case point how and why the Hurricane came to a dead-end after the Battle of Britain whilst the Spitfire kept developing right up until the end of the war? Development potential. If not for precisely the same reasons, that's what happened to the P-40.

Which in turn implies that you thought I was saying the P-40 was alone in the durability class? When both the P-47 and Hurricane were superior? Again, you have made assumptions about my statements and my position.
Hey! Who's the one making assumptions here!? I didn't imply anything, I answered your original claim that the P-40 had 'insane' structural strength with the consideration that its peers too, could take some!
The P-40 was structurally a strong aircraft but only within the context of US fighter design philosophy - strength, speed and firepower ie it was a robust fighter in a whole inventory of robust fighters.

No. No, no, no. The USAAF needed a long-range escort fighter, that was the P-51. The P-40 was a great air superiority fighter AND had significantly better range then the Spitfire and Bf-109, but an 8 hour duration was out of the question.
You can almost guess what's coming; Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes. On 29May40 the USAAF didn't even know they needed a P-51 (presumably you understand the significance of that date); it was to utilise the same Allison employed by the P-40. Greater minds than ours at the time realised they could attempt to improve the P-40 or try and come up with something better; given the exact same engine, they did. Long-range escort came later and I don't believe even NAA saw that coming, the P-51 simply had the development potential to evolve into the role. You show me where in NA-73 it stipulates long-range escort capability.

The P-40Q, IMO, was silly. The P-40E, with the simple addition of a 1500 horsepower Merlin or Allison engine, was all that was needed.
Silly? In your opinion? Can you qualify your opinion with slightly more than 'it was silly'? If the P-40F and L weren't good enough with the Packard Merlin fitted, why do you think the P-40E would have fared any better?

As I have already pointed out, that was not a role for the P-40 from the beginning
The P-40 was requiremented and designed pre-war, it was envisaged that engagements would take place at low level; when the war started aircraft development picked up the pace and the US realised that the P-40 wasn't really what they needed any more.

However, on the Eastern Front, the P-40 proved itself quite capable against the Me-109
The Luftwaffe hit the Soviets hardest low down, guess what the P-40 was designed for? (see above)

A wash, I'd say. The P-40 is the superior furballer, the P-51, the superior energy fighter.
Unbelievable. Do you really think a P-51 pilot, sitting on his 50mph speed advantage is going to furball with a furballer? He's going to use his superior energy to run through him and bite lumps off him.

Neither could the Bf-109 or the FW-190 "evolve" into a extreme-long range escort.
Yes, quite; you see, that's the difference between interceptors and long-range escort fighters...

So the Bf-109, who's performance skyrocketed steadily from 1939 to 1945, remaining competitive to the end, was clearly the end of the evolutionary line and wasn't good enough!
I've no idea what you just said there

To me, it is a testament to the amazing performance of the P-51 that a fighter built to do the near-impossible- achieve an 8 hour flight duration for long-rage escort- was also capable of holding it's own in a dogfight. The Mustang was a unique ship in this regard. Just because another fighter couldn't achieve that kind of long range didn't make it clearly inferior, it just made it like every other fighter plane in the world.
It wasn't built to do that, it was - quite mundanely - on Britain's shopping list for hardware in the face of by now, inevitable war with Germany. Nobody then even dreamed it would be escorting thousand-bomber raids to Berlin and back in 6 hour flights.

That's fairly common knowledge, you know.
Let's imagine for a minute that it isn't...

It could absorb ground fire much better, a very important attribute for ground-attack.
OK, ground attack, that's one attribute of 'multi-role', what about the rest?

On the other hand, the P-51 could haul twice the payload (2,000lbs to the P-4os 1,000.) Oh, wait, with a proper engine the P-40 could have matched that, too.
and where on the wings would you strap 2,000lbs of ordnance to a P-40?

That meant that many enemy planes- most notably the Bf-109- that were inferior in every other aspect (roll, turn, dive,) could still wage a good fight.
I've a feeling you'll be hearing on this one...

Having tried this extensively in a few good simulators flying both the A6M and the P-40, and from what I've read on ACM, I think what made the P-40 a better energy fighter is simply that it retained energy much better then the A6M Zero.
I'm not sure about that, although not certain I'm pretty sure that chin radiator arrangement didn't make the P-40 the most energy-conscious of fighters

As far as I can tell, the P-40s superior energy retention is what was really significant. The speed advantage was just icing on the cake.
Well, I'm still not so sure about this whole energy-retention issue but I'd describe a speed advantage as a little more than icing on the cake, it was usually the difference between going home and not going home.
 
Amsel said:
I don't beleive Mr. Schilling is with us anymore. He was a military aviator from before WWII through Nam and knows his aircraft. I take alot stock in his writings as an lifelong aviator.
Click to expand...

My post was not meant as insult/attack to the man that can't defend himself, so I'd like to repeat JoeB's words:
We have to distinguish the late Mr. Schilling's bravery in combat in 1940's from his analysis on the internet in 1990's-2000's: a lot of the latter was full of errors.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
2K
Ivan1GFP
I
Polish outfitting & positioning of their armed forces, 1935-39(40?)
Replies
3
Views
91
tomo pauk
How good a plane was the P-40, really?
23 24 25
Replies
493
Views
47K
Think Tanker
M
P-61 Performance
Replies
15
Views
2K
Snautzer01
French Army alternatives, 1935-40 (41?)
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
4K
Admiral Beez
A